Should the Rich pay more taxes ?

[miken1999]

Absolute not. I don't understand why we discourage success and hard work by punishing it with higher taxes.

Did you know that 43% of the population doesn't pay taxes ? Why should you carry all burden for other who doesn't even try ? The only fair way is to have a flat tax .

Imagine in school when all the "A" students get to do more home work then the "D" student. Who would want to get an "A" in the class ?''

 

[anchihiro]

Yes they should.

Two people. One works 55 hours a week on minimum wage, slaves and sweats their way through hard graft and labour. Will never get promoted because his boss only promotes girls he fancies/sleeps with. After say 25% tax he only has enough to pay bills rent, and the cheapest bare essentials at the supermarket.

Guy two, runs his own business, got a leg up all the way because of who his daddy is. Supposed to work 40 hours a week but for him that includes meetings at fancy restaurants, golf games and such. Earns 2 million a year.

And if you had it your way, would get taxed the same amount. Would this person really be crippled in any way if their taxes were a few percentages higher? No.

Why should one individual get nothing and the other everything. The super rich aren't victims, stripped of their luxuries if they're taxed abit more. Infact they'd hardly notice it. Why not have their lifestyle come at a price.

 

[FPNY]

they should pay their fair share, everyone single person, corporation, company, LLC whatever you call your money making scheme should pay their fair share. Plain and simple....

Why do the oil companies in America get tax credits? They have been making record breaking profits year after year and are getting tax break after tax break. My property taxes went up over $500 just this year. Where is my break?

 

[bike10]

Back during the age of 1920's when the Republican Party ruled from Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Andrew Mellon served all three presidents as Secretary of the Treasury. A man of weath and power from Pittisburgh PA. He his opinion he sought and got taxes cut on the rich and infact he wante ended taxes on the rich if he had his way. Well look at what was the result of Mello's policies. Cutting taxes on the rich did not created the jobs they say.

 

[Spiff]

Did you know that 43% of the population doesn't pay taxes ? Why should you carry all burden for other who doesn't even try ?

You do realize that a large portion of those that don't pay any taxes, or don't pay a percentage as high as lower income people are rich people and corporations, yes? There are endless loopholes and tax deduction abuses at their disposal.

How do you feel that as an average working Joe, that some rich fuck is likely paying a smaller percentage than you?

We are just asking for ALL the wealthy to pay at least their fair share.

 

[gsdx]

I been seeing articles on the Net in which rich people think they SHOULD pay their fair share. One guy was surprised that, when he did the math, his secretary paid more taxes than he did. Not dollar-for-dollar, but percentage-wise. He had more money than he could spend. She needed every penny to take care of her family.

I don't think it's as much a matter of paying 'more' than it is paying their 'fair share'.

Taxing the lower classes an unfair amount keeps them in the lower classes. Not taxing the rich a fair amount allows them to keep getting richer.

 

[Tbot91]

I've always been partial to the idea of trickle down economics in that if rich people or businesses have more money, they will invest it more in employment, development, expansion, etc., things that will improve the economy. But, I also think this view is rather naive. This may sound silly, but if rich people were constantly using their money to put back in the system, they would not have very much money at any given time; their wealth is almost all in investment. If people just sit on big piles of money, their money isn't doing anything; money does much more benefit to society when it's being spent. This is a situation in which I think something should be done (e.g. higher taxes on the rich). I would like to believe that an individual can invest their money much better than the big, slow government can, but if the individual doesn't want to do anything to begin with, then we might as well let government do something with it.

 

[braex27]

Absolute not. I don't understand why we discourage success and hard work by punishing it with higher taxes.

Did you know that 43% of the population doesn't pay taxes ? Why should you carry all burden for other who doesn't even try ? The only fair way is to have a flat tax .

Imagine in school when all the "A" students get to do more home work then the "D" student. Who would want to get an "A" in the class ?''

I don't think your grades analogy quite works. Higher grades bring with them higher rewards - better admission, higher recognition, better jobs, higher pay.

Your question tends to ask whether people who earn more should pay more tax when they get no more benefit from taxes paid (i.e. civil services, public works) is no more than for those citizens that do not pay tax.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

If they don't, we will pay for it in other ways.

 

[bw92116]

Yes, absolutely, the rich and corporations should pay more taxes than they do now.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

depends how you define "more" ... taxing everyone at an equal % would inherently mean that the wealthy pay more $.

when you have warren buffet, one of the wealthiest men on the world, saying that the wealthy are getting unneeded and undeserved tax advantages, maybe we ought to listen to that & act accordingly.

 

[Gatorguy]

First, let me say that I think those who can pay more, should pay more.

However, my reality with the US tax system is as follows:

In college I worked OT (overtime) every chance I could, every holiday, every Friday night, every chance I could.

My buddies, worked enough to cover their bills, and went out and drank vs. working.

My country rewards my decisions with a higher tax rate. If my buddies had gone on to father a couple children, they were excluded from the taxation completely, conceivably for 15-20 years.

Just so you know this disproportionately has a negative impact on younger gay people who typically don't reproduce with multiple partners. Therefore, they pay the higher rates.

Again, I'm not saying that my buddies don't have the right to live their way. I just have a tough time with them handing off the invoices to me because I elected to work and not have kids.

 

[Spiff]

I've always been partial to the idea of trickle down economics in that if rich people or businesses have more money, they will invest it more in employment, development, expansion, etc., things that will improve the economy. But, I also think this view is rather naive.

Currently corporate profits are at record high levels, and unemployment is at the highest levels since the great depression. So calling the trickle down economics view "naive" is a huge understatement. The only thing trickling down are the tears of those without jobs.

 

[CowboyBob]

Of course they should.

Hard work? How many millionaires and billionaires have that money by inheritance? I know many. 5 of the 10 richest people in America are Sam Walton's adult kids and they got their billions through their Daddy and the hard work of millions of working poor.

 

[miken1999]

" if you could afford more , you should pay more in taxes "

Why should you have pay more for something if we all use the same public services?

Imagine going into a store and the price of goods are base on your income .

 

[Swellegant]

I don't think wealthy individuals should pay more earned-income tax than less-wealthy individuals...I'm a firm believer in the flat rate for income taxes. However, there should be taxes on "unearned" income: investment dividends, trusts, gifts of money or property, etc. Further, corporations that manufacture or outsource labor to foreign countries should pay tariffs on the income generated by outsourcing the same as they would importing goods.

I also think a two-tier sales tax, for common goods and luxury goods, would be a great idea. Unfortunately, so long as campaigning and holding office remains as grotesquely expensive as it is, the corporations and wealthy individuals who pay to put our elected officials in office are going to remain in charge.

 

[fetaby]

Absolute not. I don't understand why we discourage success and hard work by punishing it with higher taxes.

Did you know that 43% of the population doesn't pay taxes ? Why should you carry all burden for other who doesn't even try ? The only fair way is to have a flat tax .

Imagine in school when all the "A" students get to do more home work then the "D" student. Who would want to get an "A" in the class ?''

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHgxCm_nWJY[/ame]

What exactly is hard about raping the middle and lower class?

 

[fetaby]

" if you could afford more , you should pay more in taxes "

Why should you have pay more for something if we all use the same public services?

Imagine going into a store and the price of goods are base on your income .

If the price of goods was based on income, even the poorest amongst us would have no trouble feeding their families and the food stamps would not be necessary. That's a good idea.

 

[roadtripboy]

I think everyone should pay their fair share. And the includes all charities, churches and pacts.

No tax exempt status for anyone.

 

[fetaby]

I do want to highlight the irony of the Republican platform though, in that they rally to keep the rich the richest and the poor the poorest while at the same time advocating guns for all.

Social programs are about the only thing keeping this country running and once they get dismantled and defunded we really will begin to see some 4th amendment remedies being put into action.

Let's see if they can privatize the police forces fast enough to protect themselves.